Thursday, April 16, 2009
Here was what was supposed to happen: With telco-friendly Republican
Congress members swept out of the way, Democrats would usher in
legislation enshrining Network Neutrality principles and give the FCC
the power to enforce them.
Editor's Note: Some assume Net Neutrality is a black-and-white
regulation/no regulation issue, but it's much more complex than that.
Unfortunately for those of us who aren't ISPs or major entertainment
companies, it's becoming very clear whom Congress—Democrat or
Republican—really represents, and it's the Internet that helps create
that clarity.
Comment.
Here's what happened (is happening) instead: The most powerful Net
Neutrality supporters (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton) are kicked
upstairs while cable-and-Hollywood-friendly Democrats are killing
Network Neutrality legislation in committees.
Meanwhile, both telecom and cable companies are emboldened by the
legislation's quiet death, the deafening sound of non-action covered
up nicely by the economic crisis, and both industries are soothed by
interim FCC commissioner Michael
Copps' toothless proposal for a fifth unenforceable principle
regarding network discrimination.
Joe Barton
The Democrat rope-a-dope strategy of the last few years is coming back
around to kill Net Neutrality. The initial plan was simply to let
Republicans have enough rope to hang themselves. Congressional
Democrats ignored calls for investigations and impeachment of members
of the Bush Administration because doing so allowed them to drop all
blame square on their opponents' shoulders for everything without
putting themselves under undue scrutiny. A few years of doing
absolutely nothing was tantamount to lying low while Republicans
destroyed themselves so Democrats could take over…and continue to do
nothing.
Did Democrats support net neutrality merely because it was
politically expedient and a way to differentiate themselves from
Republicans?
Tell us what you think.
Henry Waxman
It's a genius plan until people start watching and learning about the
new bosses and start understanding how much they look like the old
bosses. The Internet Freedom and Preservation Act of 2006, 2007, 2008?
All killed by assassins with supposedly opposing goals.
The Senate version is suspicously stuck in a committee of formerly
staunch proponents. The
House version is under
the committee supervision of net neutrality opponent Joe Barton
(R-TX) and Henry Waxman (D-CA), who represents West Hollywood and
Beverly Hills.
Dianne Feinstein
We're not surprised by Barton, a Texas Republican
funded by Comcast and AT&T—that's historical par for the course.
But Waxman's a Democrat, and Democrats are supposedly pro-net
neutrality. Meanwhile, we should also be surprised by Dianne
Feinstein's (D-CA) lame and failed
attempt to sneak in "reasonable network management" provisions
into the economic stimulus package as Waxman looked the other way.
So what's going on with our supposed neutral net champions? The answer
lies in the other industries opposed to net neutrality, namely the
Entertainment industry, the principals of which happen to live in
Waxman's and Feinstein's districts and donate heavily to their
campaigns.
Waxman gets lots of money from the cable industry, including
TimeWarner and Disney.
Feinstein's donors include Time Warner and Disney as well, but
also Qualcomm and GE (which owns NBC).
Do you think Feinstein and Waxman really understand net neutrality
or are they letting their biggest donors call the shots on this issue?
Comment.
In the earlier days of the Net Neutrality debate, the argument
centered on very technical issues lost on the general public and
focused heavily on telecommunications companies like Verizon and AT&T,
and some on Comcast. (Though Ted Stevens famously issued a
net neutrality push poll asking constituents if they wanted more
TV or less TV.)
As it progresses it becomes less about network issues (as if it ever
really was about network issues) and more about Web video. Right now,
very large, very wealthy, very powerful entities are battling for
control of what will become the new TV (and radio and newspaper). It's
not about bandwidth or network operation. It's about controlling Web
media, especially video.
Recently we learned from the CEO of a cable company who says American
cable providers won't allow speeds they're capable of delivering
because they're
afraid people will cancel their cable TV subscriptions. TimeWarner,
a maker of films and television content as well as a cable Internet
and TV provider, is toeing the line with
download caps limiting how much video consumers can download.
John Conyers
AT&T on the other side, quietly updated its terms of wireless service
to prevent video transfers. AT&T, of course, is also getting into the
video content delivery game with its U-Verse. Despite these most
recent instances loudly protested, legislators have
cited lack of complaints of abuse as the reason why they've backed
off. Even former neutral net proponent John Conyers (D-MI) suddenly
thinks it's a non-issue. It'd be nice if we could look at
his top donors and not see AT&T, TimeWarner, Sprint, and Cable,
but sure enough, there they are, as predictable as the sunset.
You might have also noticed, like we have, that while anything the
RIAA and the MPAA want goes right through Congress like crap through a
goose, network neutrality legislation (wanted by the people who
currently have no money) languishes and dies in committee.
With a setup like this, good luck getting net neutrality legislation
passed this year or the next. Maybe in 2010 the country will suddenly
favor independents and third parties so the do-nothing bums still
remaining will be thrown out. But that may be overly optimistic—the
people will likely still be broke by then, and its money that wins
elections, and apparently what runs Congress.
Is it time for a third party? For campaign finance reform?
Congressional term limits? To let it be?
Let us know what you think.
© 2009
WebProNews. |
|